- (1.) HAVING considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are satisfied that sufficient ground has been made out for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for considering today itself.
(2.) THE husband of the appellant No. 1 was appointed as a Store Keeper in the Jugsalai municipality in the year 1969. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Tax Daroga in the year 1971 and finally he was made Tax Daroga in the year 1972. By an office order dated 21st January, 1997 the husband of the appellant No. 1 was placed under suspension. Aggrieved thereby, he moved a writ petition being CWJC No. 437 of 1997(R), which was disposed on 30th June, 1997 with direction on the respondent authorities that in the event they wished to continue with the departmental proceedings, they would have to serve charge -sheet on the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of the order and that the departmental proceeding was to be concluded on the basis of day - to -day hearing without unnecessary adjournments being given. On 5th July, 1997, a notice was published in the Udit Bani relating to the compliance of the order dated 30th June, 1997 passed by this Court and the charge -sheet was also sent to the husband of the appellant No. 1 by registered post on 4th July, 1997. The said letter was received by a minor daughter of the appellant No. 1 on 14th July 1997. On finding the said letter, the husband of the appellant No. 1 submitted his joining report on 21st July, 1997 contending that after a period of two weeks from the date of the order, since the charge -sheet had not been served upon him, the entire proceedings stood quashed. The husband of the appellant No. 1 was, however, not allowed to join his duties and, on the other hand, he also did not choose to attend the disciplinary proceedings on the stand he had taken and finally, he was dismissed from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the husband of the appellant No. 1 contended that since the proceedings had stood quashed automatically on account of the failure of the respondents to serve the charge -sheet within the stipulated period of two weeks, the order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, and that too ex parte, was bad and was liable to be set aside.
(3.) THE learned single Judge who heard the matter, by his judgment and order dated 13th September, 2004, dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no merit therein and that the respondents had acted within the meaning of the order of the Court, since the stipulation was that the charge -sheet shall be served preferably with two weeks from 30th June, 1997 and not within two weeks from 30th June, 1997.;